PUBG is a Battle Royale game. Survival. One death and you’re out. That’s wildly different from a team versus team game with shared objectives and respawning. Players stay in Battlescape games, and spending all your time getting back to the fight is simply not going to work.
I know of no game that revolves around teams that introduces minutes of delay to get back into a fight. Every game I’ve ever played like that involved a way to revive the downed man so he could rejoin the group then and there. ARMA has medics and fantasy games have healers.
That said, Battlescape has Carriers. That is the small ship “revive” in the sense that when an Interceptor or Bomber is destroyed, the player can get a new ship at the nearest Carrier. The enemy will clearly want to take out the Carriers, and when too many have been destroyed, or their capacity for spawning small ships is consumed, that fleet is going to have to withdraw because they don’t have enough small ships to support their operations.
That all seems like it would work quite well to support quick and violent deaths in Interceptor and Bomber fights. It would be a war of attrition, with each team knowing that they were going to lose a lot of small ships. That attrition effect would be affected by pilot skill, of course, with a disparity in pilot skill (or fleet coordination) being sufficient to turn the tide, even against a superior Carrier force. Battle of Britain stuff.
So I don’t believe that citing PUBG is a viable argument, but Battlescape gameplay could be structured to make fragile small ships work just fine.